After a week of a lot of thinking about and discussing Robert Nozick’s thought experiment “The Experience Machine”, I created this little clip as a response to it.

To provide some context, Nozick suggests that if given the opportunity to enter a machine that will simulate a life full of only happiness (bear in mind that once in the machine, one would not know they were in a simulation), people would choose not to do so because they prefer the “authenticity” of the “real world.” There is more nuance to it than that, but for the sake of keeping this brief we’ll leave it at that.

Now, I have a lot of problems with Nozick’s conclusion, and frankly I disagree with it entirely. Perhaps my biggest problem with the conclusion is that one of his premises that is required to validly support such a conclusion is that he assumes that his own interpretation of reality is the right one, and the only one. He uses this premise to assume that everyone would choose not to enter the Experience Machine simply because HIS reality is somehow more “authentic” than the one that exists within the machine. Nozick is so wrapped up in his own idea of what “real reality” is that he chooses to entirely ignore the fact that different people will have different ideas of what reality is, whether it be for reasons of religion, philosophy, experience, or anything else.

One thing that I should note is that I have thoroughly enjoyed every single experience I have had with Virtual Reality. I grew up with video games, and the progress I have seen that has brought us technology such as the Vive is thrilling to me. As Elon Musk has put it, video games are coming closer and closer to becoming entirely indistinguishable from reality (which he uses to defend his argument that there is an incredibly low chance that the life that we are currently experiencing is not itself a simulation, an example of a view that contradicts Nozick’s interpretation of reality). When I read the thought experiment, I immediately thought that I would not pass up the chance to enter the Experience Machine. I see no reason not to. I don’t see any justification for the idea that the reality in which we currently exist is somehow more authentic or meaningful than the one that would exist within the machine, especially given that Nozick suggests that within the machine one would have no idea that they were in a simulation. I have no idea whether or not I am in a simulation now, so the only difference I see between a life outside the machine and one within is that the Experience Machine rids us of all suffering. It provides us with a life that will be infinitely more fulfilling, exciting, and eternally happy.

I was presented with an alternative version with of the thought experiment and asked whether I would enter the Experience Machine if the amount of happiness and unhappiness inside the machine were equal to those outside the machine. My first reaction was to say “no”, and I was briefly taken aback by that thought because I began to question why I had thought that. Was Nozick right in saying that there is something other than happiness that gives this life meaning? Then I realized that the reason I would not enter the machine in that case was because I would have no incentive to do so. If the life inside the machine would be exactly equal to that of the life outside the machine, then why would I choose to deviate from the status quo? If the example was flipped, and I was told that I was indeed inside a simulation, and there was a way to get out of it, I would also choose not to leave the simulation unless I had some incentive, some justification for doing so. Therefore, my conclusions on the Experience Machine still seem to stand.

I love discussing things like this so if anyone wants to contribute to this conversation, please feel absolutely free to do so.

Thanks for watching!